Conservative governors and legislators across America are angry at the third branch of government. Some of these lawmakers are pushing legislation that could throw judges off the bench, while others are pushing to limit judicial authority. In one state, a governor unilaterally removed a justice of the state supreme court. Another Republican governor has publicly vowed to defy a ruling in a pending case if he does not like the outcome. Many of these proposals violate the separation of powers principles in their respective state constitutions. But some of these politicians want to amend their state constitutions to give the executive and legislative branches exclusive control over judicial appointments.
This conservative backlash is a response to court rulings that require the legislatures to spend more money on education or to distribute those funds more equally. These proposals send a message—a warning to judges that legislators have the means to punish courts that rule against the state.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/c...education/

(03-31-2014 03:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Conservative governors and legislators across America are angry at the third branch of government. Some of these lawmakers are pushing legislation that could throw judges off the bench, while others are pushing to limit judicial authority. In one state, a governor unilaterally removed a justice of the state supreme court. Another Republican governor has publicly vowed to defy a ruling in a pending case if he does not like the outcome. Many of these proposals violate the separation of powers principles in their respective state constitutions. But some of these politicians want to amend their state constitutions to give the executive and legislative branches exclusive control over judicial appointments.
This conservative backlash is a response to court rulings that require the legislatures to spend more money on education or to distribute those funds more equally. These proposals send a message—a warning to judges that legislators have the means to punish courts that rule against the state.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/c...education/

And?

The writers at American Progress have no problem w/ obama's overreach.

Furthermore, those rulings show complete disregard for the Constitutions that these judges are supposed to uphold.

(03-31-2014 03:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Conservative governors and legislators across America are angry at the third branch of government. Some of these lawmakers are pushing legislation that could throw judges off the bench, while others are pushing to limit judicial authority. In one state, a governor unilaterally removed a justice of the state supreme court. Another Republican governor has publicly vowed to defy a ruling in a pending case if he does not like the outcome. Many of these proposals violate the separation of powers principles in their respective state constitutions. But some of these politicians want to amend their state constitutions to give the executive and legislative branches exclusive control over judicial appointments.
This conservative backlash is a response to court rulings that require the legislatures to spend more money on education or to distribute those funds more equally. These proposals send a message—a warning to judges that legislators have the means to punish courts that rule against the state.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/c...education/

You need some help with spelling. It's Obama, not Republican or conservative.

There is no substance to that ideological opinion piece.

(03-31-2014 03:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Some of these lawmakers are pushing legislation that could throw judges off the bench, while others are pushing to limit judicial authority. In one state, a governor unilaterally removed a justice of the state supreme court. Another Republican governor has publicly vowed to defy a ruling in a pending case if he does not like the outcome.

All that sounds very encouraging, but I have never heard about the example I put in bold. Who/when/where was that?

(03-31-2014 05:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Some of these lawmakers are pushing legislation that could throw judges off the bench, while others are pushing to limit judicial authority. In one state, a governor unilaterally removed a justice of the state supreme court. Another Republican governor has publicly vowed to defy a ruling in a pending case if he does not like the outcome.

All that sounds very encouraging, but I have never heard about the example I put in bold. Who/when/where was that?

I don't recall that either. It must be some more made up liberal bullsh!t.

All that sounds very encouraging, but I have never heard about the example I put in bold. Who/when/where was that?

I don't recall that either. It must be some more made up liberal bullsh!t.

It's called READING. It's in the article. None other than the bridge closer.

The New Jersey Constitution requires the state government to offer a “thorough and efficient” education for all of the state’s school-age children. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that this obligation was not satisfied by a school-funding system that relied primarily on local property tax revenue. As in Washington and Kansas, the court found that this system discriminated against students in urban districts with fewer resources. The court and the legislature went back and forth for decades, with the court eventually ordering more funding from the state for the poorer districts. Conservative politicians criticized the court for “activism,” but by 2009, the legislature had passed a bill that the court deemed constitutional. The court lifted all of its orders on education funding, releasing the state from decades of judicial oversight.
But when Gov. Chris Christie ® took office in 2010, his first budget slashed funding for education, including the urban districts for which the court had previously ordered more resources. The court ruled that these cuts violated the state constitution, and it reimposed its remedial order for more funding for the poorer schools. The court described the cuts as a “real, substantial, and consequential blow to the right to the achievement of a thorough and efficient system of education.”
Christie responded by arguing that the court should not “determine what programs the state should and should not be funding,” despite the language in the state constitution. Christie campaigned against the court for “legislating from the bench” and pledged to “reshape” the court. In an unprecedented power grab, Christie in 2010 threw a respected justice off the bench by denying him tenure. A recent Center for American Progress report stated:
Every governor before Christie—even a Republican governor who served as his mentor—did not view the executive appointment power in this way. Christie’s attempts to make the court more conservative ran afoul of traditions that have ensured the high court’s independence from the political branches of government since the ratification of the state constitution. Until now, the political branches renominated every sitting justice for tenure, regardless of whether they agreed with the justice’s rulings, and maintained a partisan balance in which neither Republicans nor Democrats had more than a 4-3 majority on the court. … Christie is trying to change all of this. He wants a conservative court that will rule in his favor and against middle-class families and poor school districts.
The Democrat-controlled New Jersey State Senate has resisted Christie’s effort by refusing to confirm some of his nominees.1 Chief Justice Stuart Rabner has filled the vacant seats by appointing lower court judges, but the chief justice is up for tenure in June.

This is the push for privitization. It's a massive roadblock for the GOP.

So exactly who got ditched?

Quote:Christie in 2010 threw a respected justice off the bench by denying him tenure

Sounds like more leftwing bridgegate BS from huffpo.

(04-01-2014 07:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The New Jersey Constitution requires the state government to offer a “thorough and efficient” education for all of the state’s school-age children. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that this obligation was not satisfied by a school-funding system that relied primarily on local property tax revenue. As in Washington and Kansas, the court found that this system discriminated against students in urban districts with fewer resources.

So for hundreds of years it was acceptable, then suddenly, as leftists took a bigger stake in educational institutions, pushed citizens out, and performance plummeted, that funding was no longer acceptable.

That's what's key right there. Leftists trashed an institution, then wailed they needed more money.

Wait so the courts dictating funding is constitutional? Since when is it their job to legislate?

(04-01-2014 07:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  All that sounds very encouraging, but I have never heard about the example I put in bold. Who/when/where was that?

I don't recall that either. It must be some more made up liberal bullsh!t.

It's called READING. It's in the article. None other than the bridge closer.

The New Jersey Constitution requires the state government to offer a “thorough and efficient” education for all of the state’s school-age children. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that this obligation was not satisfied by a school-funding system that relied primarily on local property tax revenue. As in Washington and Kansas, the court found that this system discriminated against students in urban districts with fewer resources. The court and the legislature went back and forth for decades, with the court eventually ordering more funding from the state for the poorer districts. Conservative politicians criticized the court for “activism,” but by 2009, the legislature had passed a bill that the court deemed constitutional. The court lifted all of its orders on education funding, releasing the state from decades of judicial oversight.
But when Gov. Chris Christie ® took office in 2010, his first budget slashed funding for education, including the urban districts for which the court had previously ordered more resources. The court ruled that these cuts violated the state constitution, and it reimposed its remedial order for more funding for the poorer schools. The court described the cuts as a “real, substantial, and consequential blow to the right to the achievement of a thorough and efficient system of education.”
Christie responded by arguing that the court should not “determine what programs the state should and should not be funding,” despite the language in the state constitution. Christie campaigned against the court for “legislating from the bench” and pledged to “reshape” the court. In an unprecedented power grab, Christie in 2010 threw a respected justice off the bench by denying him tenure. A recent Center for American Progress report stated:
Every governor before Christie—even a Republican governor who served as his mentor—did not view the executive appointment power in this way. Christie’s attempts to make the court more conservative ran afoul of traditions that have ensured the high court’s independence from the political branches of government since the ratification of the state constitution. Until now, the political branches renominated every sitting justice for tenure, regardless of whether they agreed with the justice’s rulings, and maintained a partisan balance in which neither Republicans nor Democrats had more than a 4-3 majority on the court. … Christie is trying to change all of this. He wants a conservative court that will rule in his favor and against middle-class families and poor school districts.
The Democrat-controlled New Jersey State Senate has resisted Christie’s effort by refusing to confirm some of his nominees.1 Chief Justice Stuart Rabner has filled the vacant seats by appointing lower court judges, but the chief justice is up for tenure in June.

From what I read above, it appears that part of a governor's power is that of granting, or not granting tenure to judges. If that is the case, what did Christie do that wasn't legal?

As well, unlike our federal government, most state governments are REQUIRED to have a balanced budget. In the year 2010, if I'm not mistaken, there was a recession going on and states across the country had to reduce expenditures to balance their budgets due to a reduction of tax revenues. When less money is coming in, and you have a requirement to balance the budget - expenditures get cut INCLUDING EDUCATION. Why educators think they are exempt from the economic realities is baffling.

Mach, you have no problem increasing taxes (the private sector gets their ox gored), but somehow throw a fit if funding for education gets cut (your ox is gored). Maybe if the state didn't have such large pension liabilities due to allowing state employees to retire after 30 years, education wouldn't get hit. Sometimes you can't have it all when it's taken from the other guy's pocket.

(04-01-2014 07:36 AM)Crebman Wrote:  From what I read above, it appears that part of a [New Jersey] governor's power is that of granting, or not granting tenure to judges. If that is the case, what did Christie do that wasn't legal?

This.

(04-01-2014 07:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that this obligation was not satisfied by a school-funding system that relied primarily on local property tax revenue. As in Washington and Kansas, the court found that this system discriminated against students in urban districts with fewer resources.

Urban districts have "fewer resources?" How did that happen?

(04-01-2014 07:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Wait so the courts dictating funding is constitutional? Since when is it their job to legislate?

Have you forgotten Judge John T. Curtin?